Emit fewer assumes now that we have range metadata on parameters

[scottmcm]

We still need the assume for the target type's range, but we no longer need it for the source type's range.

The first stab at this regressed a test, but thanks to good advice in llvm/llvm-project#123278 (comment) the second commit here changes how we emit these range assertions to the form that LLVM apparently likes better (and, conveniently, is easier to emit too) which got that test passing again 🎉

Hopefully this means less crud for LLVM to churn through in opt builds...

[rustbot]

r? @fee1-dead

rustbot has assigned @fee1-dead.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[scottmcm]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 959fd5f with merge f0c078e...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: f0c078e (f0c078eba80206e6a26efad8143155ffd3c02ba8)

[scottmcm]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 8ab474a with merge 28bc505...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 28bc505 (28bc5054392a5de43833561ce0416a1f8cfdf227)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (28bc505): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.4%, 1.7%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -4.5%, secondary -1.0%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.5%	[-4.5%, -4.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.0%	[-1.0%, -1.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-4.5%	[-4.5%, -4.5%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.3%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary -0.0%, secondary 0.0%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.1%, 0.0%]	4

Bootstrap: 763.784s -> 764.347s (0.07%)
Artifact size: 326.10 MiB -> 326.07 MiB (-0.01%)

[scottmcm]

Well, ok, then, I guess I'm leaving in the assumes :/

[scottmcm]

@rustbot author